Skip to main content

Don't look now, but conservative Latin American leaders want us to legalize drugs . . . .

Who woulda thunk it?


An increasingly large chorus of nations - ravaged by trafficking and violence - say it's now time to re-think international drug policy. As the corrupting power of cartels grows across Mexico and Central America, and as the body count rises, legalisation needs to be seriously discussed as an alternative to militarisation, regional leaders say.
It isn't a message US President Barack Obama wants to hear when he arrives in Cartagena, Colombia, to meet 33 heads of state on April 14.
--snip--
Guatemala's President Otto Perez Molina, a former general during the country’s "dirty war", came to power promising an "iron fist" against delinquency. He recently called the war on drugs a failure and argued that "consumption and production should be legalised" within certain limits.
Juan Manuel Santos, president of Colombia, and arguably Washington's closest regional ally, has called for "a new approach" that would "take away the violent profit that comes with drug trafficking".
"If that means legalising and the world thinks that's the solution, I will welcome it," said Santos, a former defence minister responsible for battling leftist rebels and drug traffickers in a war with massive human rights abuses. 
What's interesting here is that the traditional libertarian view ("I've got a right to do whatever I want to with my own body") is not driving this, but a more utilitarian comparative-harm view ("The evils of the violence caused by drug trafficking are worse than the evils caused by drug use/addiction").

It is a pretty simple calculus:  We now have X million number of Americans using illegal drugs.  The cost of that usage includes (a) personal/social/economic losses attributable to addiction; (b) cost of law enforcement and incarceration; (c) cost in human lives of narco trafficking both here and abroad; (d) cost of additional military force both here and abroad; (e) destablization of friendly regimes and the funneling of illicit drug profits into terrorist causes; and (f) loss of potential tax revenues that could be used to fund addiction treatment programs here at home.

Eliminating the war on drugs transfers a minimal to moderate level of risk here (a few more car accidents and overdoses, a few more people getting hooked)--read that as an increase in (a) above, countered by massive decreases in (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f).

Aside from that, I really don't think it is any of your damn business what I decide to put in my own body as long as I take precautions not to allow my usage not to endanger you directly.

Comments

Dana Garrett said…
I can't help but think that Colombia's interest in decriminalizing drug use and distribution stems in large part from the leftist rebel's use of the illegal drug trade to fund their revolution. Legalization would starve the revolution. I also can't help but think that the USA will resist Columbia's new position because without the pretext of helping Columbia in the war on drugs, the USA lacks a justification to keep a military presence in the region, one especially strategically close to that upstart Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?